I'll try to help make it easy for you, since you seem to be having a lot of trouble grasping the concept of actually trying to make a point via logical argument and presentation of evidence:
Start with the Wikipedia page comparing command shells [0]. Look through the various tables there -- feel free to ignore the "Programming features" table since it's irrelevant to the question of what makes a good interactive user shell -- to see where shells differ. Based on the differences you find, build up a list of reasons that tcsh is not as good a choice as mksh. Next, offer some examples of common command line syntax rules and how they affect the way we compose commands. Such examples should include stuff like: * environment variable assignment, printing, and export * nesting commands * completion and history access * useful configuration file characteristics and capabilities Then, of course, you can go on to further strengthen your case with references to dependencies, licensing, resource consumption and on-drive size, bugs, and so on. Any of this stuff might actually present a meaningful argument, as opposed to just asserting other people are idiots, claiming you're right with nothing to back it up, and generally waving your hands and making a lot of noise without convincing anyone of anything. (By the way, I'll save you the trouble of referring to the license. I know that mksh uses the same license as the MirOS project, which is a variant of the Historic Permission license. It's a copyfree license; I have no objects to using it on those grounds, personally.) -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgp9IXlxvWqWn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
